Publication:
Secondary cancer risk from modern external-beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer patients: Impact of fractionation and dose distribution

dc.contributor.authorChomporn Sitathaneeen_US
dc.contributor.authorPuangpen Tangboonduangjiten_US
dc.contributor.authorMantana Dhanachaien_US
dc.contributor.authorSawanee Suntiwongen_US
dc.contributor.authorPornpan Yongvithisatiden_US
dc.contributor.authorSukanya Rutchantuken_US
dc.contributor.authorPimolpun Changkaewen_US
dc.contributor.authorRattana Watjiranonen_US
dc.contributor.authorSuphalak Khachonkhamen_US
dc.contributor.authorVipa Boonkitticharoenen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-04T08:40:56Z
dc.date.available2022-08-04T08:40:56Z
dc.date.issued2021-07-01en_US
dc.description.abstractModern radiotherapy (RT) uses altered fractionation, long beam-on time and image-guided procedure. This study aimed to compare secondary cancer risk (SCR) associated with primary field, scatter/leakage radiations and image-guided procedure in prostate treatment using intensity-modulated RT (IMRT), CyberKnife stereotactic body RT (CK-SBRT) in relative to 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT). Prostate plans were generated for 3D-CRT, IMRT (39 fractions of 2 Gy), and CK-SBRT (five fractions of 7.25 Gy). Excess absolute risk (EAR) was calculated for organs in the primary field using Schneider's mechanistic model and concept of organ equivalent dose (OED) to account for dose inhomogeneity. Doses from image-guided procedure and scatter/leakage radiations were determined by phantom measurements. The results showed that hypofractionation relative to conventional fractionation yielded lower SCR for organs in primary field (p ≤ 0.0001). SCR was further modulated by dose-volume distribution. For organs near the field edge, like the rectum and pelvic bone, CK-SBRT plan rendered better risk profiles than IMRT and 3D-CRT because of the absence of volume peak in high dose region (relative risk [RR]: 0.65, 0.22, respectively, p ≤ 0.0004). CK-SBRT and IMRT generated more scatter/leakage and imaging doses than 3D-CRT (p ≤ 0.0002). But primary field was the major contributor to SCR. EAR estimates (risk contributions, primary field: Scatter/leakage radiations: Imaging procedure) were 7.1 excess cases per 104 person-year (PY; 3.64:2.25:1) for CK-SBRT, 9.93 (7.32:2.33:1) for IMRT and 8.24 (15.99:2.35:1) for 3D-CRT (p ≤ 0.0002). We conclude that modern RT added more but small SCR from scatter/leakage and imaging doses. The primary field is a major contributor of risk which can be mitigated by the use of hypofractionation.en_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Radiation Research. Vol.62, No.4 (2021), 707-717en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/jrr/rrab038en_US
dc.identifier.issn13499157en_US
dc.identifier.issn04493060en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85112124764en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/77031
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85112124764&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectEnvironmental Scienceen_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.subjectPhysics and Astronomyen_US
dc.titleSecondary cancer risk from modern external-beam radiotherapy of prostate cancer patients: Impact of fractionation and dose distributionen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85112124764&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections